The Safety and Efficacy of Guidezilla Catheter (Mother-in-Child Catheter) in Complex Coronary Interventions: An Observational Study

Guidezilla Catheter in Neuroendovascular Interventions: A Case Series Study

BACKGROUND

Neuroendovascular procedures can be challenging due to severe angulation of the cervical and cranial vessels. Typical approaches for overcoming this tortuosity involve using multiple telescoping catheter systems to provide proximal support for therapeutic device delivery. Although this approach can be effective, it does have limitations.

METHODS

We describe the utility of the Guidezilla (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts, USA) guide extension catheter, a device designed for coronary interventions, in the treatment of 3 patients undergoing neuroendovascular procedures.

RESULTS

In these 3 cases, the decision to use a guide extension catheter varied but was mainly due to severe tortuosity, heavy calcifications, and failure to introduce stents into distal locations.

CONCLUSIONS

Although helpful in overcoming challenging anatomy, the Guidezilla guide extension catheter should be used with caution when used as a bailout device.

Utility of Guiding Catheter Extensions for Recanalization of Chronic Total Occlusions: A EuroCTO Club Expert Panel Report

Guiding catheter extensions (GCEs) have become indispensable tools in the modern approach to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The support offered during complex PCI of uncrossable, or tortuous lesions is particularly valuable in the setting of chronic total occlusions (CTO), both for conventional anterograde wire escalation and for anterograde or retrograde dissection and re-entry techniques. This EuroCTO consensus document describes the use of GCE during CTO recanalization and provides a practical guide to anatomies and techniques in which these devices are applicable. We describe the peculiar features of the most-used device and the practical technique for GCE delivery in standard PCI; further specific indications for antegrade and retrograde CTO PCI are discussed in a specific section. In the antegrade approach, the GCEs may be useful to increase support or facilitate antegrade dissection and re-entry techniques, while in the retrograde approach for reverse controlled antegrade and retrograde tracking, to increase retrograde support for gear delivery, for treatment of CTO in bifurcation and ipsilateral externalization with a single guide catheter. The last section of the paper describes GCE-related complications, challenges, limitations, and future perspectives.

Guidezilla™ guide extension catheter I for transradial coronary intervention

Background

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred treatment method for coronary artery diseases (CAD). This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and complications of the Guidezilla™ guide extension catheter I (GGEC I) in transradial coronary intervention (TRI).

Methods

This case series study included patients with CAD who underwent TRI using the GGEC I between August 2016 and January 2019 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University.

Results

A total of 221 patients aged 65.1 ± 9.26 years were included. Coronary angiography results indicated that most patients (77.8%) had triple-vessel lesions, including 47.5% with chronic total occlusion (CTO). A total of 237 target lesions were treated, most being type C lesions (95.8%). The most common indication for GGEC I use was heavy calcification (67%), followed by extreme tortuosity (12.2%), extreme tortuosity and heavy calcification (10.9%), distally located lesion (4.5%), picking up the retrograde wire (3.2%), anomalous vessel origin (1.8%), and releasing the burr incarceration (0.4%). The mean operation time was 58 min, and the overall success rate was 94.1%. Four patients received a drug-coated balloon. No significant differences were found in operation time and success rate among the low (<23), intermediate (23-32), and severe (>32) CAD groups based on SYNTAX score stratification (P > 0.05). Two subacute thrombosis cases each were reported perioperatively, during hospitalization, and at the 1-month follow-up.

Conclusion

The GGEC I might have advantages for TRI and is unaffected by SYNTAX score stratification.

Guide catheter extension systems: Hype or a need?

Guide catheter extension system (GCES) is a valuable tool for interventional cardiologists, especially in complex cases. GCES increases guide back-up support and is crucial in complex PCI procedures, particularly in cases of severe calcification and tortuosity. Apart from their primary use to increase back-up support of guide by providing coaxial alignment, deep intubation and facilitation of stent delivery, GCES are now being increasingly used in different clinical indications including complex and high-risk coronary intervention interventions.

Application of a rapid exchange extension catheter technique in type B2/C nonocclusive coronary intervention via a transradial approach

BACKGROUND

In transradial intervention procedures, poor back-up support and noncoaxial alignment of the guide catheter (GC) may result in failure of the balloon or stent to reach the targeted lesion. Methods to provide extra back-up support using the original GC and wire can improve procedural success with reduced complications. A rapid exchange guide extension catheter provides convenient and efficient back-up support while preserving the initial GC and inserted wire.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of rapid exchange extension catheter in the treatment of type B2/C nonocclusive coronary lesions via the radial access.

METHODS

A total of 135 patients with type B2/C nonocclusive lesions who were treated via the transradial approach were enrolled in the study. The clinical characteristics, indications for use of the rapid exchange extension catheter, and procedural details and results were reviewed and analyzed. All procedure-related complications and major adverse cardiovascular events were recorded during the in-hospital stay and follow-up period.

RESULTS

The most common indication for the use of a rapid exchange extension catheter was vascular tortuosity (37.8%), followed by heavy calcification (28.9%), long lesions (20.0%), proximal stent (6.7%), in-stent restenosis (5.2%), and coronary origin anomalies (1.5%). The following technologies failed in passing targeted lesions before delivering the rapid exchange catheter: Multiple predilatation technique (57%), buddy wire technique (33.4%), balloon anchoring technique (5.9%), and cutting balloon modification (3.7%). The mean depth of the extension catheter intubation was 20.56 ± 13.05 mm, and the mean rapid exchange catheter service time was 18.9 ± 9.7 min. The mean length and diameter of stents were 33.5 ± 14.4 mm and 2.75 ± 0.45 mm, respectively. The total rate of technique success (balloon or stent successful crossing of the target lesion with this technique) was 94.8%.

CONCLUSION

The rapid exchange extension catheter technique showed acceptable safety and efficacy in the transradial coronary interventions of type B2/C nonocclusive coronary lesions. We recommend this technique to assist in complex lesion intervention via radial access.

A cascade of multiple complications hampering a complex high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (CHIP-PCI): When ingenuity overcomes troubles!

Even skilled CHIP operators can run into multiple complications. Some are unexpected and not related to the operator, and others are fully preventable by careful procedural choices. If those occur, the knowledge of devices and cognitive skills become lifesaving elements and sudden issues need to be dealt with calmly and efficiently.

When Things Get Stuck: Gear Entrapment and Other Complications of Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Complex coronary artery intervention stresses the limits of both the operator's skills as well as the equipment being used for the procedure. This article is focused on avoiding, recognizing and dealing with device failure and gear entrapment during complex coronary intervention. The operator must understand how to avoid these complications by understanding the limits of devices and the need for adequate vessel preparation. This article focuses on giving the reader an algorithmic approach to recognizing when device failure/entrapment occurs and what specific maneuvers can be done to retrieve different devices and equipment safely.